A Fist-Bump for the New Yorker

I'm a little late to the party, but here is an absurd decorousness in the denunciations -- from the Obama and McCain campaigns and across the liberal blogosphere -- of the current New Yorker cover.

The top-line objection is to accuse the New Yorker of poor taste. In the limited context of campaign discourse this is true. But magazines and other journalistic enterprises would be crazy to buy into the notion that abitrary etiquette of American campaigns (which encourages candidates to lie baldly, and surrogates to spin and smarm and swift-boat, while prohibiting frank talk to a host of issues from race to religion to terror itself), should govern their decisions.

Underneath that are liberals' more practical fears about the cover's impact on Obama's campaign. This line of thinking goes: Obama is so new and different, his image so unformed in the public mind, and U.S. opinion still so anxious on the matter of terrorism, with Democrats perceived as weak -- that the Obama campaign, and we as a nation, just can't handle images like this, because they might be interpreted the wrong way.

Really? No one worries that TNY's readership will take it literally. Fox will show it and chortle, but hey -- it will likely only confuse conservative viewers inclined to think of Obama as a Muslim terrorist dupe. Why are the liberal elites advertising Obama's subversion, mocking it? The image itself is an absurd jumble of terrorist iconography -- Black Power, al Qaeda, flag burning, etc.

Seven years after 9/11, after an onslaught of bad-faith political manipulation over terror, and with the threat of al Qaeda now quite debatable, Americans can certainly handle a little jokey imagery about terrorism and politics. Free expression is a bulwark of American liberalism, part of what makes it what it makes it superior to political philosophies that rigidly enforce what words can be uttered and images can be shown. When liberals start policing the "poor taste" of cartoons so that some people don't get the "wrong idea," it only reinforces the notion that all the fearmongering was effective, and perhaps right -- and also shows how weak and tenuous Democrats fear their position on terrorism remains.

www.johnmcquaid.com/blog

Comments

[eden4barack08]

The part I find most indefensible here is the stereotype of the black militant woman, and that cannot be explained away as "poor taste", it's simply either racist, or racially insensitive.
It's left up to the reader to decide what the The New Yorker 's intent was. Being a reader of the magazine for almost 10 years now, I would obviously rule out being racist, but it's no consolation that I'm left with racially insensitive.

More so, fellow readers, need to stop saying "lighten up", it's satire, it's just in "poor taste", and just admit that for all its good intentions, this time, The New Yorker, just didn't get it quite right. Period.

[dhinds]

Britt's drawing PORTRAYED the kind of unfounded, vicious, racist fear mongering and doubt casting that Barack Obama is committed to (and must) transcend in politics.

There was no condemnation of either those tactics or those that use them and nothing to indicate the characterizations were groundless.

If satire was intended, the results failed to accomplish the goal of putting into perspective the squalid behavior of unidentified, sewer dwelling political bottom feeders and ghouls.

The New Yorker deserves to be called down for this failure.

[Saitia]

Roughly half of the voluminous comments that collect under articles showing The NY cover demonstrate the abject need for a brighter light to shine on the whispering hatred represented in the satire. America's illiterate electorate needs to grow up fast if there is going to be an end to the clusterphuque of the Republican ideology of governance.

When confronting such a widespread problem, the best possible course of action is not to suppress, half-cure, or hide from the ugliness of racism and bigotry, but to work for the *full disclosure* of the ignorance as the quickest technique of achieving the cure of the plague of racism and bigotry. So talk about it; argue about it; think about it. ACT. Confront the hatred and the bigotry in the people that think that way; not the message and the messenger.

[MGhamma]

This is like Don Imus. It's so outragious that only a moron wouldn't understand the satire. As soon as I saw it, I got it. But then, I are smart.

[BlackJAC]

In THE BLUES BROTHERS, Dan Aykroyd wanted to establish that the reason why the Bluesmobile could do all of those crazy stunts is because Elwood kept parking it next to electrical transformers, and the resulting EMP absorption imbued the car with special powers. John Landis told Dan that the audience wouldn't realize that unless Dan was willing to go to each and every showing and explain it to the audience in person. In standup comedy this is known as "being too hip for the room," and Doc Severenson once said, don't tell jokes only the band will laugh at.

[DarkWitch]

Nailed it.

[gopindrag]

" it only reinforces the notion that all the fearmongering was effective, and perhaps right ."

Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, et al have made their fortunes on that premise.

[robynuva]

Satire is to make fun of peoples" foibles. This would only be satire if it was depicting the rumor mongers, not the victims. Also, if you have to explain the joke, it"s not funny.
And if you think people will all "get it" go to the Politico blogs and see just how many didn"t. (and we are talking about readers of Politico, not the Weekly Standard). Many are saying "where there is smoke there is fire." And these are the so called "informed voters".
Of course they have a right to publish, and I have a right to call it what it was, a bad joke, thought of as funny by a group of folks who are so insulated in their beliefs that they couldn"t even tell how offensive and OFF POINT it was. In my opinion it was racist, and the fact that the board at the New Yorker couldn"t see that is sad for them. I would bet my next pay check there were no African-Americans in the room when the editorial board members were yucking it up over this cartoon.

[PumaAnn]

Well, that could be Obama's fault. He's made a huge issue out of how he is NOT Muslim. Yet many researchers say that's simply untrue. Now the question is who is right? That new book, Obama: The Man behind the Mask, apparently tracks and verifies his Muslim childhood.

Personally, I don't care. I don't see anything but someone who is religiously expedient. I learned enough about his character and his judgment by seeing where he's been attending church for 20 years, how he handled that situation......I don't need more.

But there are quite a few people who do think he's lied about his childhood religious roots and wonder why that is.

[StephenJK]

It's a fact that he was a practicing muslim in Indonesia by the name Soetoro. Obviously, when he moved to Hawaii he stopped praciticing. However, as he lived in the most populous Muslim nation in the world he DID practice it in school and home. His own half sister has verified this recently on camera.

So yes, I am one who wonders why he's been completely avoiding these facts. Actually, I've become so disenchanted by Obama that I don't really care anymore. I know an Obama presidency would be a disasterous at this time. I've questioned his judgement and character ever since the real scrutiny started. He should have just stayed out and jockeyed for the VP slot where he could have learned something about the job.

The only real reason I didn't support him from jump street was his complete lack of experience. Then the TUCC, Wright and past & present associations that REALLY turned me off of him. Then it became his judgement and character. Now it's his persistent drift toward right wing philosophy that is turning off some of his most ardent supporters. What will it be next?

[robynuva]

This is exactly why the cartoon was irresponsible. Sen. O was raised for the majority of his childhood,by his Christian grandparents in HI, and attended a state run school for a short time in Indonesia. He was registered by his step-father who was Muslim, but he is not, or as he ever been a Muslim. The school was not a Medrasa.

He was baptized a Christion 20 year ago. As far as the church the attends, do you know anything about it other than the non-representative clips of Rev. Wright shown on the MSM?

I don't care what religion someone is, but I do care when someone spreads lies.

[111]

I posted elsewhere that this cartoon did what a political cartoon is supposed to do and there is no apology needed. This is similar to people who demand apologies for art that they personally don't like, find distasteful or upsetting.

I doubt that real liberals are fearful for Obama's image and I doubt they are upset about this cartoon. Real liberals may not like what is being said but they will defend to death the person's right to say it. They are not worried about how people may view this cartoon.

The self-identified "liberals" here that would remove this image from public view aren't liberals. They are the same people who are either silent about or supportive of Obama's support of FISA.

Liberals maintain their critical thinking skills and their love for our Constitution and the principles that this country was founded on, regardless of personal tastes and fears.

[JohnTalbutt]

You are attacking a straw man. No one has said they can't print whatever they want. People are free to put shit between two chocalate crackers and call it an ice cream sandwich. Some of us are just not buying.

[JJK]

Your points are well-taken, tho I think you should be careful about extrapolating to FISA and other issues.

And, your final paragraph's description of "liberals" would also describe Libertarians (not "Bob Barr" Libertarians, but true Libertarians).

[Bilboo]

Most Americans can't "handle a little jokey imagery." Most American voters are dolts, and the concept of satire is alien to them.

That's why the New Yorker cover is dangerous. Every stool-for-brains wingnut in the country is going to use a photocopy of it as exhibit A with his stool-for-brains friends about why Barack "Osama" shouldn't be elected.

To presume any ray of intelligence on the part of American voters (notice who's polluting the White House now?) is foolish in the extreme.

[JJK]

Your basic point is hard to dispute when the electorate you describe gave a second term to Bush and Cheney in 2004. However, it's a little difficult to sustain. Recall it wasn't "stool-for-brains wingnut[s]" who gave their votes to Ralph Nader in Florida and New Hampshire and the election to W in 2000, but "stool-for-brains liberals."

So, I'd agree that we have an electorate that is rife with those who might aptly be described as having "stool for brains," but all the doo-doo isn't restricted to the Right.

As for talking in condescending tones about the electorate, I think that those of us who want to see Obama elected should put a lid on it until after the election. The polls are tightening and we're going to need every vote, even if a few of them have cranial contents of which we might not approve.

[StephenJK]

Watch. This convention in August is going to be wild. You'll have PUMA's going up there and all sorts of other Clinton supporters going up there. Those people will be loud and will be noticed. Obama's "candidacy" is failing right now. When they count the votes up at Denver there is a slight chance that HRC could end up as the nominee. That is simply my lost hope. We can't afford to have Obama be president at this time. God help us if he does win. God help us if McCain wins.

[DarkWitch]

Nobody stopped them from printing it. So I don't have the right to say i don't like it, or that i think it's in poor taste? I get what the guy is saying, duh, I just think the joke s*cked. It's just not funny. But I'm trying to suppress free speech by expressing my opinion of it because I think it's not funny?

'Kay.

And you seriously think the twisted minds of the socially challenged won't use the image to perpetuate the lies the cartoon satirizes? Sure they will, This is almost as good as Jesse Jackson's little spew.

They have every right to print it, doesn't mean everyone has to like it. Free speech goes both ways.

[BARRISTER]

Even "Free Speech" has boundaries, and the cover crossed over.

It is in fact Libelous.

[DarkWitch]

It's not libelous simply because it's satire, even if it is an extremely poor and unfunny example.

To be libelous I believe the cartoonist would have to say all the stereotypes he depicted in his cartoon were true. IMO, it's difficult NOT to infer that by the cover alone, but the mag has a whole article that supposedly goes with it in which they try to dispel myths about the Obamas (?). Didn't read it, but from what I gather it's not that flattering, either.

But that's their story and I'm sure they're sticking to it.

[meanguy]

sorry, the definition of libel does not include "speech that hurts the cult's feelings"

[JJK]

How is it "libelous?" Don't get me wrong, I didn't like the cover, but the Obama's are public figures so the bar for libel is extremely high. How exactly does it meet any reasonable standard for libel?

I think we all have to tone down our rhetoric here. The cartoon was bad satire and it was put on the magazine's cover as a result of bad judgment. That's been amply said and I think there is a consensus on those facts among reasonable people this morning. There is, however, little debate that its publication was within the rag's First Amendment rights. It might not have been in the magazine's best interests when it comes to its reputation or circulation, but that's another matter.

[Bademus]

What? So now liberals can't be offended by the cartoon satirizing the Obamas? It doesn't come of as satirizing those who buy or spread the false rumors, they aren't represented in the cartoon. It's just of the embodiment of the rumors portrayed in the Obamas and I don't think the black folks of this country are laughing. It's just plain not funny. Put that cartoon inside a tv as a fox news broadcast and then maybe it may have some of the desired effect. As it is now it's just plain offensive.

[PumaAnn]

Just as most of you could care less that the joke on HuffPo offends Hillary supporters (Fire Sale piece), perhaps not everyone cares if you're offended, either.

You haven't had to suck it up much, since Obama is not a fun guy with a sense of humor. Nobody lampoons him until now.

[StephenJK]

It's an eerily similar reaction as the muslim's did to the "offensive" depictions of the prophet of Islam, Mohammed. Is Obama a prophet? No. No, he's no prophet. However, he IS a profit for those who he is beholden to.

[GBartrem]

Ok! forget about the cover, how about the content of "The New Yorker". They have run some very Daming articles exposing the Bush Administration. Authors such as Symore Hersh and Bob Woodward have contributed to this magazine. So if anyone ever got past the cover they would know that "The New Yorker" is not just a rag.

[JJK]

You're right on the facts (except it's "Seymour"). However, while I am a subscriber, I also think that The New Yorker is a self-absorbed, narcistic publication that generally panders to an elitist reader base, the critical mass of which resides in New York and California. This leads to a narrow and self-aggrandizing world view at the magazine. In my opinion, it was this world view that allowed for the colossal error of political and social judgment that put that cartoon on the front page. The assumption was that everyone would "get it;" however, very few did.

As a secondary point, the cartoon itself was bad satire, whether it was on the cover or page 86. Anytime an Editor has to spend the day explaining what a cartoon "meant," it is fair to say that it was "bad," since good satire does not need to be explained. Allowing the publication of the latter was, therefore, also a lapse of editorial and critical judgment.

Finally, on the use of "rag." The word is usually intended to be derogatory, but it is occasionally used to describe printed media in general with a casual but not insulting intent. One might go to the Internet in the morning and mumble to oneself, "Let's see what the rags are saying today," and be thinking about The New York Times or The Washington Post.

[Drjimmy72296]

Between the "who cares it's only the fourth amendment" idiots and the pathetically hysterical response to this cartoon I've pretty much lost all faith in the electorate.

[Buddhabman]

I got the satire, though I was uncomfortable with the image a Michelle Obama included. That is touching some nerves. That picture caricature of Michelle feeds the subconscious of some heavy stereotyping that I think many progressives probably feel. It's hard enough on the candidate, it's not proper or fair to include Sen. Obama's wife in that cover.

[AlisonChaynz]

I agree 100% with this post. When I first saw that New Yorker cover I thought it was very funny. It was obviously a smackdown of the right-wing idiots who generate and/or believe in the fear-mongering rumors against Obama.

I'm kind of surprised by the left's reaction to this.

[meanguy]

i'm NOT surprised at all...playing the outraged victim is "liberalism 101"...it comes with 'hypersensitivity training' along with hyperbole and hysteria

[Buddy McCue]

I thought playing the outraged victim was conservatism 101... like the outrage over the Obamas' "terrorist fist jab," or Rachel Rey's scarf. Talk about hyperbole and hysteria.

[lizr]

hit job pure and simple.

Toomuch of